Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 042517 MinutesKAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 25, 2017 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by Chair Keawe at 9:04 a.m., at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting room 2A - 2B. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Kimo Keawe Ms. Donna Apisa Mr. Wade Lord Mr. Sean Mahoney Ms. Glenda Nogami Streufert (entered at 9:10 a.m.) Absent and Excused: Ms. Kanoe Ahuna Mr. Roy Ho The following staff members were present: Planning Department Michael Dahilig, Chance Bukoski, Dale Cua, Ruby Pap, Leslie Takasaki, Marie Williams; Office of the County Attorney - Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa; Office of Boards and Commissions Commission Support Clerk Darcie Agaran Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Chair Keawe called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. ROLL CALL Planning Director Michael Dahilig: Commissioner Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney: Here. Mr. Dahili . Commissioner Apisa. Ms. Apisa: Here. Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Streufert. Vice Chair Ho. Commissioner Ahuna. Commissioner Lord. Mr. Lord: Here. Mr. Dahilig. Chair Keawe. Chair Keawe: Here. Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, you have four (4) members present this morning. Chair Keawe: Okay. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, next on the agenda is approval of this agenda. The Department would recommend moving Item L to the very last item for discussion and,. -or action on the agenda this morning. Chair Keawe: Do I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended? Ms. Apisa: So moved. Mr. Mahoney: Second. Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carries 4:0. Thank you. MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission Regular Meeting of March 28, 2017 Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Item No. D. This is the regular meeting minutes of March 28, 2017. Mr. Mahoney: Chair, move to approve the minutes. Ms. Apisa: Second. Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes of March 28`h. Any discussion? All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 4:0. Thank you. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Continued Agency Hearing (NONE) Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are on Item F. This is Hearings and Public Comment. We have no continued agency hearings this morning. New Agency Hearing Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2017-9, Use Permit U-2017-7 and Special Permit SP -2017- 3 to allow construction of a new control building, replacement of an existingpump, and associated site improvements involving a parcel situated on the eastern side of Wailaau Road in Koloa, approx. '/z -mile of its intersection with Maluhia Road, further identified as Tax Map Key (4) 2-8-002:001,and affecting a portion of a larger parcel approx. 314+ acres in size = County ofKaua `i. Department of Water. Mr. Dahilig: We do have a new agency hearing. This is Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2017-9, Use Permit U-2017-7, and Special Permit SP -2017-3. This is to allow the construction of a new control building, replacement of an existing well pump, and associated site improvements involving a parcel situated on the eastern side of Wailaau Road in Koloa, approximately '/2 -mile of its intersection with Maluhia Road, further identified as Tax Map Key (4) 2-8-002 Parcel 001, and affecting a portion of a larger parcel approximately 314+ acres in size. The applicant is the County of Kauai, Department of Water. At this time, Mr. Chair, the Department would recommend opening the agency hearing. Chair Keawe: We will open the agency hearing for this specific item. Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, we do not have any individuals signed up to testify on this particular item. The Department would recommend making a final call for any testifiers for this application and close the agency hearing. Chair Keawe: Are there any testifiers for this specific item? If not, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Mahoney: Chair, move to close the agency hearing. Ms. Apisa: Second. Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carries 4:0. Continued Public Hearin Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are on Item F. This is Continued Public Hearing. We have none for this morning. New Public Hearin Mr. Dahilig: As well as any new public hearings for this morning. All remaining public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 (Sunshine Law) Mr. Dahilig: I do have five (5) individuals signed up to testify on the General Plan item. If appropriate, Mr. Chair, I'll make a call for these individuals and see if they elect to either testify now or at the item when it's called. Chair Keawe: Yeah, you have the option of testifying now or when the item is called. Mr. Dahilig: Sharon Goodwin. Sharon Goodwin: Yes. Mr. Dahilig: Testify now or Ms. Goodwin: Yes, please. Mr. Dahilig: Okay. Ms. Goodwin: You mean right now? Chair Keawe: Go ahead. Right now. Ms. Goodwin: Good morning. Chair Keawe: Good morning. Please pull the mic up and state your name. Ms. Goodwin: Aloha, Honorable Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners. Chair Keawe: Can you state your name, please? Ms. Goodwin: Oh, forgive me. My name is Sharon Goodwin, Wailua Homestead. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Ms. Goodwin: Thank you. In reviewing... excuse me; back up. I need to let you know that I am reading the testimony of Anne Walton. She is unable to be here. In reviewing Supplemental No. 5 provided to you by the Planning Department, it has become evident that the intention to up -zone the area around Kapa`a Middle School to accommodate the development of a colossal development is still a recommendation that is on the table. As has been evidenced by the last three (3) Planning Commission meetings, this is clearly a contentious issue. And given the fact that the General Plan is a guidance document, why is this type and level of an issue appearing in the plan at all? It is much better suited to having its own hearings as would any other up -zoning issue. I repeat that sentence - it is much better suited to having its own hearings as would any other up -zoning issue. You have this in writing before you and strike out that word "not". Thank you. There are three (3) problems with the way that colossal development has been addressed in Supplemental No. 4 and, by default, maintains the same status at the time Supplemental No. 5 was released. First, it is clear that the Planning 4 Department's decision to take a position on a colossal development is not founded on sound rationale. Between Supplemental No. 3 and Supplemental No. 4, there was a 180 -degree shift on the Planning Department's position. There was no clear reasoning given for this shift other than the fact that developer and his cohorts made a good show at the Planning Commission's meeting on April 10. It appears that whoever walks in the door last weighed the decision of the Planning Department on this issue. This is nothing new except we now have a draft General Plan document that lays out a vision, goals, and policies for which this latest decision on a colossal development is inconsistent. A colossal development exacerbates many of the very problems the General Plan intends to address, including the issue of traffic, infrastructure needs, and, most of all, the need not for just more housing, but affordable housing. Please provide some insight as to how the up -zoning of the colossal development is justified. Ms. Nogami Streufert entered the meeting at 9:10 a.m. Ms. Goodwin: Two, the spillover from this decision by the Planning Department to support such a colossal development has also impacted other community designations Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Chair Keawe: Could you wrap up your testimony, please? Ms. Goodwin: and land use zoning recommendations from the Planning Department in regards to Kapa`a. Number three, this new set of recommendations is unprecedented in this plan. Nowhere else in Supplemental No. 4 or 5 or the rest of the draft General Chair Keawe: I'll ask you one more time; could you please wrap up your testimony? Ms. Goodwin: Recommendation. Given the community sentiment after the map alternatives were presented for a colossal development, the lack of sound rationale for making a flip-flop decision on the up -zoning and the fact that the 2035 General Plan is the wrong place to address a specific development project. Chair Keawe: Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Goodwin: Please, I urge you to remove it from the General Plan altogether. Chair Keawe: Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: John Moore. John Moore: Now. Aloha. My name is John Moore. I'm the Director of the Hawaiian Sustainability Foundation. I've been working on policy for the last 35 years. Today I'm here on behalf of the Kauai Community Coalition. We would like to ask the Planning Commission to take responsibility for everything that happens on our island, and we believe the General Plan, still, is only concerned about county government responsibilities and it is not an integrated plan with a defined direction. We applaud the Planning Department for collecting hundreds of good ideas in what exists as the departmental draft right now, and they have gone out of their way to have an outreach to talk to all of us, to include our suggestions in those ideas. But what is lacking is vision in leadership to make the decisions on how to prioritize and define the direction for the future of our entire island. Education, health care, the environment are still lacking other than mentions in the General Plan. The County's response is it's not our jurisdiction. But if we don't supply the direction of what we want for our island, then what we are doing is forfeiting the choice of what we want for our island. The State and Federal government agencies and private landowners will make the choice for us. So, once again, we ask the Planning Commission to ask the Planning Department... the Aloha+ Challenge is coming in a few weeks. Let's postpone making any decisions on the General Plan so we can work with them for the future of our island. We, together, have been working with many of you and State agencies and private NGO's on the island to set up a vision summit and solutions lab. We don't feel there's any need to rush into decisions on the General Plan when we can do a better job of defining the direction that we all want. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Morgan Allen, now or later? Morgan Allen: Hi. My name is Morgan Allen. I was born and raised in Hawaii. I would just like you to know that I support Hokua Place because right now, if you try and buy a house, it's just far too expensive, and affordable housing would make it far easier for people who want to live here; people who graduate high school and they get a job and they want to buy a house. And I just wanted you to know that I support it. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Al Bunquin. Al. Al. Bunquin. Anne Punohu. Anne Punohu: Aloha kakou. My name is Anne Punohu. I was part of the original General Plan and have been an active participant in the General Plan process since its inception. I am a private citizen but today I am here wearing a different hat, which is the Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition which I founded, and the purpose and mission of that is to work for fair housing and equitable housing for individuals who are on the poverty line or just regular working class Kauai people. I know that we're talking a lot about a project, a particular project that has been named and has been causing a lot of furor on both sides on the island, but let's also remember that this is a General Plan, and any colossal project that has historically come before Kauai has gone through this kind of upheaval and turmoil on our island. I was around for Princeville and the building of all of the... and fighting for the staff housing there and lived in that staff housing for many years. I was around for Kukui`ula and remember that entire process and how hard we fought for the housing for people of low income and working class people. But our situation has changed on Kauai and in my opinion, my humble opinion, our island has burgeoned very quickly in the last 5 years. We have many more people living here. People are literally flooding into our island. One of our problems is equity and balance, and I think that that's lacking currently at this moment on our island. So when we're going to talk about any future colossal project, we have to concur and understand on all sides of the issue that it is going to impact every 0 single part of our island life. Therefore, in order for any future colossal project to have any name and any shape or form to be approved in the General Plan, it would have to be an overwhelming benefit to the entire community in order to be viable for Kauai as anything in the future. And I'm hoping to make a lot more comments on the General Plan as we get further into the process, but I'm hoping that this Planning Commission... since I know that you are all wise people here and I'm sure that what I'm trying to say is simple common sense, that when we go through this process with new people from our island who are not invested in the historical implication and process of our General Plan understand that we have gone through this particular situation many times before. Some of us are old hats added and have heard and seen everything yet again. Mr. Dahili&. Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Punohu: And thank you very much for your time. Mahalo. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig. Mr. Chair, that is all that I have signed up to testify on this particular agenda item. Chair Keawe: Okay. One last call. Go ahead. Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. CONSENT CALENDAR Status Reports Director's Report(s) for Projects) Scheduled for Agency Hearing Mr. Dahilig: We are now on Item G, Consent Calendar. We have no items for the consent calendar. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. Dahilix Nor an executive session for this morning. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Request for Extension of Time of two (2) years to operate a helicopter landing facility and conduct botanical tours for Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2006-31, Use Permit U- 2006-28 and Special Permit SP -2006-2, Tax Map Key 3-4-007:002, Makaweli, Kauai = Keith P. Robinson. Mr. Dahilig: General Business Matters. This is Item I, request for extension of time of two (2) years to operate a helicopter landing facility and conduct botanical tours for Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2006-31, Use Permit U-2006-28, and Special Pen -nit SP -2006-2 at Tax Map Key 3- 4-007 Parcel 002 in Makaweli, Kauai. The applicant is Keith Robinson and Chance has handled the extension request for the Department and will be presenting on behalf of the Department. Chair Keawe: Mr. Bukoski. Staff Planner Chance Bukoski: Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. Before I begin, I would like to ... e kala mai. The Tax Map Key, for the record, is 1-7-001:011 before I begin. Mr. Bukoski read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, and Agency Comments sections of the Director's Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Mr. Bukoski: That concludes my staff report. I'll hold off on my recommendation. Chair Keawe: Okay. Can we hear from the applicant, please? Keith Robinson: Sorry, folks. I've been around heavy machinery all my life without ear protection. I'm deafer than a rock. I didn't really hear anything. Are there any questions that you want to ask me? Chair Keawe: Are you Mr. Robinson? Mr. Robinson: Yes, Keith Robinson. Sorry. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Robinson, you started this operation in 2006. Is that correct? Mr. Robinson: Yeah, that is. Chair Keawe: It's been in operation since then? Mr. Robinson: Yes. Chair Keawe: Could you give us a brief summary of how it works? What are you doing? You have tours, apparently, helicopter tours that come through. Can you give us a brief summary of that particular activity? Mr. Robinson: Well, this goes back to 1984 when I initially proposed that preservation/conservation of Hawai`i's rare and endangered species could, in some respect, be financed by ecotourism income. I said the government and the environmental groups would not be able to continue this work indefinitely, that it would have to be financed by some other source and proposed that ecotourism could be used. In 2006, I got my opportunity to land helicopters there and finance the operation of an endangered species wildlife reserve through income from the helicopter operation. As far as I'm aware, it is the only endangered species wildlife reserve in all Hawaii now — maybe in all the country, I don't know — that stands alone without any... it has never accepted a cent of financing from any other source. The income that pays for the operation comes from the landing of tourists' helicopters there. I've never ... it pays its own way. That's the only operation of its kind that pays its own way and it's never accepted a cent of donations, grants, subsidies, gifts of any kind. There have been offers, but I've turned them all down. I'd prefer to have it standing on its own and so to this day it continues to pay its own way. I'm not getting rich from the operation, but I am covering expenses and proving that under some conditions, critically important endangered species rescue work can be financed with ecotourism money. This reserve is, at present, doing some work with endangered species that no one else appears to be doing. Chair Keawe: So do you personally give the tours once they land the helicopter? Mr. Robinson: I try to be there to give the tours as much as possible, but there's an increasing press of work elsewhere now. Having said that, Safari Helicopters, which is the only other helicopter tour company allowed in there besides my brother's Niihau Helicopters — but Niihau Helicopters can be disregarded because it doesn't go there for economic reasons — but the Safari Helicopter pilots have accompanied me many times when I'm giving the tours and as a result, they are encouraged to ask questions and they themselves can give the tours when I am not there. Chair Keawe: Okay, thank you. Mr. Robinson: But most of the time I try to be there. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Streufert. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Mr. Robinson, what is your— Mr. Robinson: Ma'am, I'm sorry, you'll have to speak pretty loudly. I rn...as I said, I'm deafer than a rock. Ms. Nogami Streufert: It's alright. My husband is also, but he says he doesn't hear me. (Laughter in background) Mr. Robinson: I've heard that's a comment that husbands use. Ms. Nogami Streufert: What is your intent with this in the long run? And how do you anticipate this continuing on? Or not continuing on? I'm not sure. Mr. Robinson: Well, I guess I'll eventually just get old and die, and that will be the end of it. The operation may cease and then the endangered species will go extinct with no one to care for them. No one else is interested in doing this kind of work, especially not my brother's kids. They've seen what can happen as a result of this kind of work. It's a big turn off, frankly. A lot of people don't realize it, but the dangers and penalties for doing this kind of work can be an awful lot more severe than the dangers and penalties for growing marijuana commercially. The U.S. Endangered Species Act gives the Federal government power to cease the land of any private landowner who is caught with Federally -listed endangered species on his land. And in—back around ... I think it was 1994!1995 - I'm not quite sure - the McCandless Ranch heirs over on the Big Island, a private company, preserved one last population of Native Hawaiian crows in their forest when no one else, including the government... the government and the environmental groups had lost them every%vhere else due to mismanagement. For this, the McCandless Ranch heirs were attacked by the Federal government and by the environmental organizations, and 5,200 acres of their land was ceased at $1,500 an acre, which is a nice price for Hawaiian real estate, but if you're the government, you can dictate the price. And then having ceased the land, the Federal government lost the crows anyhow, exactly as the McCandless Ranch heirs had feared, and that sent quite a jolt through Hawai`i's private landowners, and an awful lot of them absolutely will not engage in endangered species rescue work now for fear that they might lose the land as a result. Now, I've been attacked twice by the econazis. In my case, when I started my work, I warned that I would do all the work myself, I would pay all the bills, I would run all the physical risks; and there were physical risks, including some broken bones, things like that, chainsaw cuts. But I also said that I would give free cuttings and seeds to any Federal agency or any private agency that wanted to grow them itself on its own lands, but the Feds, in the fight that I had with them back in 1994.'1995, they told me ... it was one of the people in the Honolulu Office of Fish and Wildlife Service (who) very bluntly told me that it was much easier for thein to takeover work that had already been done. I hung up the phone in a rage and as I had said, I had said that if they tried to do to me what they did to the McCandless Ranch, I would race and destroy everything rather than let them take it over. But I had also said ... I want to make this point that I had said that if they want to do it themselves, I'll supply free cuttings and free seeds, but they never took up the offer, they attacked me, and 72 hours later, the tree in question - the last one of its kind on Kauai - was mysteriously found dead. It's not a pretty situation. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I guess my question was more in terms of ..this is a 2 -year temporary ... an extension for a temporary use. This is a 2 -year pennit, essentially a 2 -year extension of your permits. Mr. Robinson: Yes, ma'am. It will enable the soil erosion control work to continue and it will also allow the endangered species work to continue. I'm working with some endangered species that apparently almost no one else is working with at this point. And I also have done some pioneer work in monitoring soil erosion, which apparently no one else has done and which revealed some extraordinarily alarming figures. I did it in conjunction with a Federal observer who wrote official letters to me giving his findings. And that's the kind of work that continues to this day. Ms. NoRami Streufert: Thank you. Chair Keawe: Any other questions, Commissioners, of Mr. Robinson? If not. Mr. Bukoski, can you read the recommendation? 10 Mr. Bukoski: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Bukoski read the Preliminary Recommendation section of the Director's Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Chair Keawe: Mr. Robinson, are you okay with the 2 -year extension? Mr. Robinson: Yeah. Yeah. It's a little inconvenient to come in every two (2) years, but yeah, I can do that. Chair Keawe: Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Mahoney: Chair, I make a motion to approve extension for two (2) years for Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2006-31, Use Permit U-2006-28, and Special Permit SP -2006-2, Tax Map Key 3-4-007:002, Makaweli, Keith Robinson. Mr. Dahilig: Just as stated— Mr. Mahoney: Oh, there was a— Chair Keawe: Yeah, there was a change in the Tax Map— Mr. Mahoney: (Inaudible) 011. Mr. Dahilig: If I could suggest, Tax Map Key 1-7-001:011. Chair Keawe: Okay. Do I have a second? Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second. Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carried 5:0. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. One last comment, if I may. I have tried a little bit to interest my brother's ... I don't have any wife or children myself, but I've tried to interest my brother's kids in this kind of work, but frankly — and I can't blame them at all — I've been attacked twice by the Federal government and the environmental agencies for doing this work, and their basic attitude is and I can't blame them for this — if crazy, old Uncle Keith is just going to work hard just to make himself a target for the government and the environmental groups, well, that's his business, but we've got better things to do with our time, and I can't blame them for that attitude. Chair Keawe: Thank you for your comments. Mr. Robinson: Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2017-9, Use Permit U-2017-7 and Special Permit SP -2017- 3 to allow construction of a new control building, replacement of an existing well pump, and associated site improvements involving a parcel situated on the eastern side of Wailaau Road in Koloa, approx. '/z -mile of its intersection with Maluhia Road, further identified as Tax Map Key (4) 2-8-002:001, and affecting a portion of a larger parcel approx. 314+ acres in size = County of Kaua `i. Department of ff"ater. Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now on Item F.2. This is action on Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2017-9, Use Pen -nit U-2017-7, and Special Permit SP -2017-3 at Tax Map Key (4) 2-8-002 Parcel 001. This is the County of Kauai, Department of Water, and Dale is going to be providing the report on behalf of the Department. Chair Keawe: Go ahead, Dale. Staff Planner Dale Cua: Okay. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. I'd like to summarize the Director's Report. Mr. Cua read the Summary, Project Data, Project Description and Use, Applicant's Reasons'Justification, Additional Findings, and Agency Comments sections of the Director's Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Mr. Cua: I'll hold off on the Department's conclusion and recommendation at this time. Chair Keawe: Can we hear from the applicant, please? Bryan Wienand: Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair. I'm Bryan Wienand with Kauai Department of Water and I have Mr. Alan Nishimura with us from Okahara and Associates, our consultant for the project. We respectfully request consideration of the aforementioned Class IV Zoning Pennit, Use Permit, and Special Permit for the project. We'd be happy to answer any questions you have regarding the proposed permits or the project. Thank you. Chair Keawe: I have a few questions. Is the proposed use to protect and serve domestic water use? Mr. Wienand: Yes. This project is to essentially replace an existing pump at our Koloa Wells site which serves the Koloa-Po`ipu Water System. Chair Keawe: Who will be the primary ... who will be primarily using the water? Is it public, private, commercial? Mr. Wienand: Entirely public. Chair Keawe: Entirely public? 12 Mr. Wienand: Yes. Chair Keawe: Have you examined other public or private uses in the area? Mr. Wienand: Sorry, could you repeat that, please? Chair Keawe: Have you examined other public or private uses in the area? Mr. Wienand: I suppose this project would just be consistent with maintaining water service to the K61oa-Po`ipu Water System from the Department of Water. Chair Keawe: What's the need for the new facility? Mr. Wienand: So currently we have our K61oa Wells 16A and E pumps, which are providing water to the K61oa and Po`ipu area. There's an existing pump, it's known as the K61oa 16B pump, which the primary intent of this project is to replace that pump which has been out of service for approximately 15 years. So it serves as a redundant source, essentially, for those two (2) existing 16A and E pumps which service the K61oa and Po`ipu water tanks. Chair Keawe: So are there any other alternative water sources for servicing the area? Or is this the primary source? Mr. Wienand: At this time, this is the primary source for the area. Our system is connected... it's interconnected with our Lawa`i-Oma`o Water System. We're capable of dropping water from Lawa`i-Oma`o, but this specific pump at 16B Well Site is essential for maintaining reliable water service to K61oa and Po`ipu. Chair Keawe: Okay. Have you reached out to any Native Hawaiians, Aha Moku Council, the Burial Council, kupuna, or other cultural practitioners or historians to examine any claims of cultural, historical, or natural resources in the subject area? Mr. Wienand: To our knowledge, we were exempt from an Environmental Assessment for this project due to replacing an existing pump. So to my knowledge, we haven't specifically reached out to any of those groups. Chair Keawe: Okay. So you felt that exemption included that? Mr. Wienand: Yes. There's a list of approved exemptions for the Department of Water for - Chair Keawe: Yeah, I saw it. Yeah. (Laughter) Mr. Wienand: So we... Chair Keawe: Okay. Any historical or anecdotal accounts of any resources that were valued in the area? 13 Mr. Wienand: None to our knowledge. Chair Keawe: Okay. Any historical or anecdotal accounts of any practices going on in the immediate area? Mr. Wienand: Again, not to our knowledge. Chair Keawe: Okay. Any other questions from... Wade. Mr. Lord: The footprint for the new pump, how is that relative to the size of the current footprint of the existing pump? Mr. Wienand: The footprint of the site would be nearly identical. There's already an existing 16B pump on the site which is essentially being replaced, so the project site is ... very minimal expansion just for the retaining wall to be behind the new control building. But, essentially, the footprint of the site will remain nearly identical. Mr. Lord: Thank you. Chair Keawe: Commissioner Streufert. Ms. Nogami Streufert: This is in Flood Zone "X" as I understand it. What exactly does that mean? Mr. Nishimura: That means it's out of the 100 -year flood zone. So it's up out of that area which would be inundated by the I% chance, 100 -year flood zone. Ms. Nogami Streufert: But it's in the area of the Waita Reservoir as I recall. Mr. Nishimura: I believe it is southwest of the reservoir, but that particular area where the site is, it's out of the 100 -year flood zone. Ms. Nogami Streufert: And in ... as I recall hearing about it, during Iniki, Waita had to be drained; otherwise it would have overflowed. If it had overflowed, would this have been in the way? Or would this have been affected? I mean, in other words, is it a little below the Waita Reservoir since it's to the southwest? Mr. Wienand: To our knowledge, this would not have been affected by that event. Effectively, we're outside of the 100 -year flood plain, which ... my coworker behind me is indicating that it would not have been affected by that Waita Reservoir event. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Okay, thank you. Chair Keawe: Any other questions? I have just a few more. Are you aware of any evidence of any resources or any subsurface habitations excavations that have taken place on the property? 14 Mr. Wienand: We are not aware of any. Chair Keawe: Okay. Are you aware of any evidence that trails were in existence on the property? Mr. Wienand: We are not aware of any. Chair Keawe: Okay. Has any individual ever requested access to the property for any reason? Mr. Wienand: Not to my knowledge, but we could check with our Operations Staff if the Commission would like us to. Chair Keawe: Okay. Thank you. Dale, recommendations. Mr. Cua read the Preliminary Recommendation section of the Director's Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Chair Keawe: Do you agree with the conditions? Mr. Wienand: We agree. I'd like to note one very minor exception. The conditions note the color of a tank. I believe that was a carryover from other Department of Water projects. We have a proposed control building which we can ensure will meet the same criteria for earth -tone colors for visual aesthetics. Chair Keawe: Okay. Dale, is that acceptable? Mr. Cua: Yeah, that's fine. Chair Keawe: Okay. Alright. One final call, any questions for the applicant? Ms. Nogami Streufert: May I ask a question of the Department? Chair Keawe: Yes, go ahead. Ms. Nogami Streufert: On Condition No. 7 where you can revoke the permits through proper procedures should the applicant fail to comply with the conditions of approval, if you were to revoke it, what would be the impact on water for the Po`ipu-Koloa area? Mr. Dahilig: We include that as a standard condition as a means of giving the applicant the notice that they need to comply with these conditions, or enforcement measures could be taken. So it's ... you know, very rarely do we end up with a situation where we actually move through a full revocation. We'll typically go through a zoning compliance first, work with the applicant to get them to a point where they can meet the conditions, or if conditions need to be adjusted, they would come to the Planning Commission first. However, in very extreme cases, total withdrawal of the permit through revocation is in situations where the applicant typically chooses to ignore our request to meet compliance or try to figure out a way to modify the permit so that they can 15 still meet the intent of the Commission's actions. So all of our permits typically have that Condition No. 7 on there. In a situation like you pose, in particular, with whether or not we would revoke a tank from being able to be operated, I think we would probably think very hard about that before we raise that with the Commission, but it's a procedure that is not done unilaterally without Commission input. Ms. Nogami Streufert: So this is more to impress the importance of all of the conditions that you have there? Is that what this is? Mr. Dahilig: Yes. Ms. Nogami Streufert: And is that acceptable to the Department of Water? Mr. Wienand: Yes, it's acceptable. Thank you. Ms. Nogami Streufert: And you understand the importance that the Planning Department is putting on this condition? Mr. Wienand: Yes. Thank you. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Thank you. Chair Keawe: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant or for the planner? No? Mr. Mahoney: No. Chair Keawe: Do we have a motion? Mr. Mahoney: Chair, move to approve Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV -2017-9, Use Permit U- 2017-7, and Special Permit SP -2017-3. Chair Keawe: Do I have a second? Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second. Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion this motion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carries 5:0. Thank you. Mr. Wienand: Thank you. Chair Keawe: We'll take a short recess right now and resume in about 15 minutes. Thank you. The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 9:51 a.m. The Commission reconvened this portion of the meeting at 10:08 a.m. 16 Chair Keawe: We'll call the meeting back to order, please. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action) Zoning Amendment ZA-2017-3 relating to updating the General Plan for the Countyoof Kauai and technical amendments related to the definition of Development Plan. [Hearing continued 131/17, hearing closed and deferred 2/28,17, deferred 3-14,17, deferred 328;17. Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll go on to Item L, Unfinished Business, Zoning Amendment ZA-2017-3 relating to updating the General Plan for the County of Kauai and technical amendments related to the definition of Development Plan. There was a hearing on 1/31/17, closed and deferred on 2:28/17, deferred 3.14:17, and deferred 3/28117. There is a Supplement No. 5 to the matter. Mr. Chair, we do have ... beyond the initial lineup of testimony, we do have six (6) individuals that wish to testify on this item. JoAnn Yukimura. JoAnn Yukimura. JoAnn Yukimura. Unidentified Speaker: She had to leave for another meeting. Mr. Dahilig: Ken Taylor. Ken Tam Good morning, Chair and members of the Commission. My name is Ken Taylor. A few weeks ago, two (2) meetings back I guess it was, I passed out a number of articles `information and one of them included a list of cities and the state they were in and their population and the square miles that they consumed. At the end of that list, I put Kauai and Kauai is considerably larger in square miles. The list consisted of cities of 120,000, down to 72,500. Why is this important? Most of these cities have one (1) police station, they have one (1) public works baseyard, they have one (1) sewer treatment plant, etc., etc. In Kauai, at least four (4) public works baseyards, at least four (4) solid waste stations, four (4) sewer treatment plants plus three (3) or four (4) private, three (3) or four (4) park yards, thirteen (13) water zones are equivalent to almost individual water districts, one (1) police station and four (4) substations. All of this costs us a lot of money and the sprawl is just something that's very difficult to deal with. I asked in a second paper that I passed out at that time, I said before this plan goes for final approval, there should be a cost analysis done. At buildout, this plan could cost the taxpayers of Kauai anywhere from $564 to $896 per year in new taxes. Most of the people on Kauai - myself included - cannot afford this kind of increase in their taxes. It's only prudent and good business to understand what the cost of moving forward will be. No developer would move forward with a project without knowing the cost benefits of his project and neither should we. I just think it's so important that we know and understand what the cost of this plan is going to be, and it can be done, it can be studied. I'm not asking you to accept my numbers. I'm asking you to hire a consultant to do the numbers and understand - Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. 17 Mr. Tam —what the cost of this plan will be at the end of the 2035 timeframe because at 78 years old, I probably won't be here, most likely won't be here. But there's a lot of young people on the island that will be, and this is the people that I'm concerned about. Thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Dahilig: Jessica Fu. Jessica Fu: Aloha, I Ionorable Members of our Kauai County Planning Commission. I'm here today - my name is Jessica Fu, or Kau`i as I'm known -- to ask you to please remove the Resort Land Use Designation on the Princeville Plateau from north shore maps in the 2020 General Plan. Coming from a long line of families on the north shore of Kauai, our grandpa, Ah Meng Fun, was a rancher in the area. Just know that we all love our place very much and I'm asking you this because the designation for Princeville Phase II issued over 30 years ago, I believe, will only make overcrowding and negative impacts on Kauai and specifically on the north shore, makes the infrastructure worse, puts more stress on our natural resources, and I'm concerned for that. I don't feel we need more resorts or hotels or increased Visitor Destination Areas in our home at the time right now. So I feel there is no need for these new resort areas on the north shore of Kauai, and I'm scared for the problems that may arise if these were allowed through this Resort designation. That's pretty much what I have to say, but thank you. Chair Keawe: Thank you for your testimony. Mahalo. Ms. Fu: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: William Kinney Jr. William Kinney Jr.: Aloha, Planning Commission. My name is William Kinney Jr. I am also a member of the Fu family and my grandfather is Ah Meng Fu, former foreman of the Princeville Ranch. I'm also here to testify in support of your consideration to remove the Resort designation from the land on which the non -entitled Princeville Phase II land development sits. Reasons being, as the language suggests in our General Plan drafts, this land should not have this Resort designation. In my opinion, considering the rise of vacation rentals since prior entitlements and designations, I think the number of the current entitled resort areas' developments far exceed our need and negate our need for more resort acreage. The need ... it assists ... for two (2) main reasons, I think that it assists our local government and communities and infrastructure, and helps to destress this need to provide more infrastructure and maintenance of these systems. And secondly and most importantly, I think it secures this land into agricultural use which this land is very important agriculture and prime agriculture land, or open space, which I think is the most important use of this land. It provides crucial open plains and safe space for birds, and gives traditional practitioners important vistas for viewing and observations for, say, navigators and/or kilo, or traditional observers. And, also, it gives a place to rebound and rest, and I think it's really important as we've seen a lot of degradation in the reef systems and the river systems of `Anini and Princeville. Mahalo. Chair Keawe: Thank you very much. is Mr. Dahilig: Anne Frederick. Anne Frederick: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm here... I'm a resident of Anahola and I'm here, also, on behalf of the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. I'm also here to respectfully request that the Resort Land Use Designation in the Princeville Plateau be removed from the 2020 General Plan. State my name again? Anne Frederick. Thanks. I just want to echo some of the concerns of the last two (2) testifiers as well about the potential environmental impacts of the increased development in that area, and also just echo the concerns of one of the previous testifiers about the lack of affordable housing and the need to prioritize that over high-end luxury resort development in the area, and just ask that the Commission respectfully consider the rezoning of that area, removal of Resort Land Use Designation, and consideration of any potential environmental impact in that area. Thank you very much. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Judy Dalton. Judy Dalton: For the record, my name is Judy Dalton. Aloha, Honorable Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners. In reviewing Supplemental No. 5 provided to you by the Planning Department, it has become evident that the intention to up -zone the area around Kapa`a Middle School to accommodate the development of Hokua Place is still a recommendation that is on the table. The secondary effects is ... a recommended change by the Planning Department to support Hokua Place has also impacted other community designations and land use zoning recommendations from the Planning Department in regards to Kapa`a. Kapa`a's Neighborhood Center General applied to previous Urban Center in Kapa`a Town and added to a portion of Olohena Road near Kapa`a Town. Neighborhood General applied to the previous Urban Center designations around Kapa`a Middle School. The previous Urban Center designation on and surrounding the Kapa`a Middle School has been updated to Neighborhood Center and refined to be located within a quarter -mile of this Neighborhood Center designation near the roundabout. Goal, accommodate East Kaua`i's project housing for new subsections, Kapa`a small town designations changed to large town Kapa`a, change level modified from incremental to transformational. So how did we get from Hokua Place to remain as an Agricultural Land Use Designation — Supplemental No. 3 — to changing the designation of the entity of Kapa`a Town and surroundings — Supplemental No. 4 — all for the sake of accommodating a single development that is not serving our community needs and desires as expressed in the General Plan. The new set of recommendations is unprecedented in this plan. Nowhere else in Supplemental No. 4 and 5, or the rest of the General Plan for that matter, do we reference to changing a land use designation for a specific project, like this one for Hokua Place. And just to remind you, in Supplemental No. 3, this statement was made by the Planning Department: given the community sentiment after the map alternatives were presented publicly, the land use maps have been adjusted to reflect the second alternative in which (the) Hokua Place site is assigned in an Agricultural Land Use Designation rather than Urban Center. 19 Mr. Dahilig: Three (3) minutes, Mr. Chair. Chair Keawe: Could you wrap up your testimony, please? Ms. Dalton: Should I continue? Chair Keawe: Yeah, if you could just wrap it up. Ms. Dalton: Okay. The community's comments received on the General Plan discussion. So, recommendation, given the community's sentiment after the map alternatives were placed for Hokua Place, the lack of sound rationale for making a flip-flop decision on the up -zoning of Hokua Place and the fact that the 2035 General Plan is a wrong place to address a specific development, I urge you to remove it from the General Plan altogether. Thank you very much. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mr. Dahilig: Mr. Chair, that's all I have signed up to testify on this particular item. Chair Keawe: Okay. Mr. Dahilig: At this time, Mr. Chair, if the Commission would indulge, our department would like to provide a presentation on Supplement No. 5 that has been distributed to the Commissioners as part of the discussion this morning. Chair Keawe: Okay. Can we hear from the planners, please? Staff Planner Marie Williams: Marie Williams, Planner, Planning Department. Good morning, Chair Keawe and members of the Planning Commission. Today we have transmitted Supplemental Report No. 5 and the new changes that we are recommending today are embodied in Exhibit 1 of the Supplemental Report. Even though the matrix does speak for itself, we thought it would help if we walk you through the changes, given that it is a 33 -page table that contains seventeen (17) recommended changes. Ms. Williams presented a PowerPoint presentation on Supplemental No. 5 to the Departmental Draft of the General Plan Update for the record (on file with the Planning Department). Ms. Williams: And that summarizes Exhibit 1 of Supplement No. 5. Do you have any questions? Chair Keawe: Any questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Apisa: I was ... I guess you mentioned about global warning. Any expansion on that? Ms. Williams: Yeah. This was the result of testimony we did receive. Some people felt that even though we do address climate change and not just the adaptation to the impacts of climate 20 change, but also how we can still today seek to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, that we needed stronger language and so we are ... sorry. I believe that Ruby Pap, our UH Sea Grant Agent who has been leading the development of climate change policy in the plan, she did spend a lot of time working on this. Ruby, do you want to talk a little bit about how we came about to include the recommendations? Chair Keawe: Can you pull up the mic and state your name, please? UH Sea Grant Coastal Land Use Agent Ruby Pa. Good morning. My name is Ruby Pap and I'm with Hawaii Sea Grant and County of Kauai. So these recent changes, the main one was to emphasize more the 3 -foot sea level rise scenario, and the reason being... generally, the State doesn't have a set planning target for sea level rise, currently. They are working on a statewide adaptation report now which may be out in a couple of years, but the general rule of thumb has been to expect about 50 feet by 2050 and ... I'm sorry. What did I just say? 50 feet? I'm so sorry. No. (Laughter) Chair Keawe: 6 feet, right? Ms. Pan: No. A foot by 2050 and 3 feet by 2100. Chair Keawe: Oh. Ms. Pan: However, that is becoming considered more and more conservative because of several reasons. We are already starting to see a rise in sea levels. The 1 foot may be expected a lot sooner; the timing is still being refined. What is important to note is that certain bodies, like NASA, have stated that we're generally locked in to a 3 -foot sea level rise scenario regardless of what we do about emissions, even though it's really important to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to make sure that that doesn't increase. So we're striving to emphasize a 3 -foot target rather than saying 1 foot and 3 -foot because we know, in general, our infrastructure and what we build in the next few years is going to last a very long time; up to 100 years, or 70 to 100 is the expected life span of a home. So it's more important to emphasize that scenario of a 3 -foot over, let's say, saying 1 foot by 2050 because that may be too conservative for us. I don't know if that's, perhaps, too much information, but we wanted to ... not that the 1 foot isn't important to understand; these lower scenarios. What's most important is to kind of look at different scenarios at all once and I think there's language for that in the plan. But when we start to talk about planning targets, we want to sort of emphasize that a 3 -foot is probably more realistic to plan for, and that's consistent with what the State is suggesting to us as we have conversations with them. Ms. Apisa: No, I agree with you and I think that's a good thing. Thank you for explaining. Chair Keawe: So, Marie, was it 3 feet SLR for this plan by 2050? And I think I read something ... 6 feet by 2100. Ms. Pan: Well, we didn't put a date on it. I think we just said 3 feet. ?] Chair Keawe: 3 feet. Ms. Pap: I don't have the exact language in front of me at the moment, but it would be by 2100. But it's important to note that those timeframes are going to become more and more refined over time, so we need to continually look back to the best available science when we're doing planning, and there's language in there and other actions that speak to that. Chair Keawe: And a 3 -foot rise could be quite traumatic. Ms. Pap: Yes. Chair Keawe: As far as the results. Ms. Pap: Yes. I mean, we're still awaiting better planning information on what the impacts on the ground would look like and there's some really good robust science going on at the state - level with UH to look at impacts of erosion; for example, flooding erosion and wave inundation. So we should have much better planning information in the next year or two to be able to really look at adaptation measures on the ground, but it is expected to be significant. Mr. Lord: I have a question. I guess, you know, I look at the planning document, the planning document looks out 20 years and you're talking about something that's looking out 85 years. Ms. Pap: Yes. Mr. Lord: So I get a little concerned when we talk about specific numbers of sea level rise that are not relative to the document today and we don't necessarily know what the outcomes are, so I wonder whether we should be so specific in a 20 -year plan, talking about numbers that are potentially out 85 years. Ms. Pap: Well I think we will start to see flooding. In fact, we are already seeing increased flooding and erosion in certain places now. Mr. Lord: No, I know, but I'm talking about a 6 -foot rise— Ms. Pap: Oh. Mr. Lord: —in the SLR. Ms. Pap: Yeah. We actually do not include the 6 -foot in any kind of policy ... any kind of action statement. We include the maps for reference in the appendix so folks can see what that looks like. We instead try to use language that states that we should use the best available science, which could mean that some of these higher scenarios could become a reality in the future; however, we don't state the 6 -foot as a hard planning target at this time. However, we should be aware that the science is changing. Mr. Lord: Thank you. 22 Chair Keawe: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Streufert. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Yes. My document says ... or, my notes say it's on Page 245, but that's on our ... that was sent to us on GoodReader, and it's about the Kahawai subsection. It's on water usage and it says that it'll become important to protect ... or, protecting the drainage systems and the water quality. Yet, that's only associated with Kahawai, and I'm wondering why that is only with that section and not with overall because that should be important for all sections as opposed to just one (1) particular... I presume that's because someone came in ... this is not about climate change. I'm sorry. Ms. Pap: Yeah, that's why I'm looking over at (inaudible). I want to... Ms. Nogami Streufert: I'm just questioning why that is. Ms. Williams: Sorry, I don't quite understand. Do you mean why do we only talk about coastal resources in—? Ms. Nogami Streufert: It's a component of the watershed section. Ms. Williams: Okay. Ms. Nogami Streufert: It's on Page 2-7. Ms. Williams: Oh in the (inaudible). Ms. Nogami Streufert: Right. Ms. Williams: Okay. Ms. Nogami Streufert: And it says, "The mid -watershed provides an important transfer zone between (the) upper and lower watershed. It represents the area of greatest alteration from human... development and agriculture." And it's talking about protecting the drainage systems and water quality, but it only comes up in the Kahawai section, so the question is shouldn't it be all over? Ms. Williams: You mean in all our R-10 subsectors? As much as possible, we did try ... it's true that many...that water quality is a cross -sectoral issue, and the development of our parks and housing and infrastructure and our transportation system needs to consider the impacts. As much as possible, we did try not to repeat certain topics, but clearly state what the policy is for addressing impacts to the watershed and our drainage systems in ... you know, have it in an easy to find section and we thought that appropriate sector would be in the Kahawai section. But that doesn't mean that it's not important to the other sectors. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I guess I ... we've discussed this before that I agree with Commissioner Lord in some ways that this is a planning document for the next 20 years, and as a planning document, we really don't know what's going to happen in 5 to 10 years. This year ... and I'm 21 using this as a pejorative way, but this year, bike paths are very important. Next year, it may be that drones are going to be taking us all over the place because we have an elderly population as you've stated earlier. So by making it very specific rather than providing guidance on how to make decisions, it becomes a decision that's already made and yet, we don't have the facts so it becomes... I think this document shows an awful lot of work, a lot of great work, but it has two (2) separate components, I think. One of them is the General Plan, which has broad outlines for what we would like to see in 20 years, and the other one is very specific community concerns, if you will, that are very specific and it depends upon who comes to the meetings as to what becomes highlighted. Not necessarily for climate change because I think most people agree that that's going to be overall, but when it comes to certain kinds of things, like rather than bike paths, we should be looking at multi -modal transportation, which can include a lot of different things. It could even include ... if you want to include and this is off the top of my head but I just saw it last night you know those trolleys that you get on and you have to peddle in order to make it move. There are so many different kinds of things that you can do, but by making it so specific, you're not giving the Planning Commission... or Planning Department, in the future, the leeway to make the kinds of decisions that they have to make based upon new facts. It's going to be very limited by what you have here. And I've discussed this before and I just want to make that clear that I have ... I think that what you've got here are two (2) separate documents; one is a General Plan and one is community concerns as to how that General Plan in the near term will be actually affected. And I'll give you another example that ... we talk about the Kapa`a traffic and that is not good - I've sat in it before — but the fact is that there are alternatives in the Kapa`a area. If you really want to look at safety, public safety, you have to look outside of there; from Kekaha to Puhi, really, because there is no other alternative except Kaumuali`i Highway. So if you're going to be looking at how to provide for the future with infrastructure, it's not about specific projects. It has to be a broader view as to how ... what kinds of issues or what kinds of considerations the next Planning Department, or this Planning Department, and the next Commission will have to be looking at. I think there's an awful lot of work and there's a lot of issues that have come up, but you might want to consider two (2) separate documents as opposed to one (1) document; one of them is a General Plan and the other one is more specifically how, in the short term, do people want to see this implemented. Because 5 years from now, we don't know what's going to happen, and it may be that we have a 1 foot rise, it may be that we have a 2 -foot rise because it's heating up much faster, but we don't know that right now. But if you limit the options for the Planning Department and the Planning Commission, then you limit the options for a better way to live. So that's my two cents. Chair Keawe: Thank you. Mike, (do) you want to address the plan in general and making changes and...? Mr. Dahilig: Sure. I think the discussion concerning the structure of the plan has been something that has been discussed and constantly raised as a point of, I guess, general ... I wouldn't say disagreement, but I think a lot of people have said a lot of things about what they'd like to see this plan reflect, but how you say it, I think, has been, for some people, the question. When you look at the genres of what you're raising, we have the General Plan, and it could be conceived that you have the policy items and you have the action items. In trying to figure out how to convey the message to the laNnian that's going to be reading this, because we are concerned about ... you know, does the Department, as the end user of this, have the information 24 and the guidance based off of the community input, but we also ... we're concerned about community literacy at the same time. We had debated in-house whether the question of actually taking all the action items and having it as a separate appendices to just the general policies was the appropriate structure of the plan. To an effect, it was not two (2) separate documents, but to look at the appendices as more action guide posts and deemphasize the action items as separate and distinct from the policy items. But as we called through the community input that came through, what became apparent is that much of the tenure and subject matter — and as you're hearing today even from those that are being heard out of the public — it's how do we balance that reflection of community intention and desire with something that is being raised to us at the 5,000 -foot level where, in reality, we're trying to create a document that is at the 25,000 -foot level. And that is something that, in the structure of the plan, we have attempted to try to balance because every time we made a shift to more broad terminology or more broad statements, we get a reaction of let's get more narrow, and vice versa; we get things that are narrow, we get this kind of reaction to say well you're not looking at the big picture and we need a bigger structure. We need things like sustainability or the Aloha+ Challenge. So you're seeing this ebb and flow of this tension between what is appropriate at whatever level of planning we're hitting. And I think your comments reflect what I think we've all been struggling with is how do you take the community input that is generally at the 5,000 -foot level and raise it to a consistency of things that are at the 25,000 -foot level. I don't know if this, again, as what we're proposing, is a glove that fits well for everybody, but it's, in effect, an attempt to balance those tensions because if we were to go to a pre -prescribed framework, we are concerned that it doesn't provide the automatic balancing provisions that we kind of try to almost ... from a homegrown standpoint, have to try to come up with to address this. So I think where we are still open to those ideas of how do we not lose the forest from looking at a tree and we are very concerned about, again, not having, like you said, being saddle -strapped to very finite and specific conditions or actions that when throughout the planning horizon, like you mentioned, things ebb and flow and change. What's the new black? Or what's the new vanilla? Right? That we need to be able to still find conformance in the plan. I feel comfortable that given what we've tried to do with this tension that there is enough flexibility, but it may not be to a degree that provides a level of comfort for some people to allow for that nimbleness. But we've designed the structure of the plan with that intention in mind and have looked at the idea, okay, what do we do if we separate the actions out from the policies? And we made the suggestion, okay, let's align the policies with the actions instead, and that's where we ended up with in this case. Chair Keawe: Any further, Glenda? Ms. Nogami Streufert: Listening to all the testimony here — and I apologize, I haven't heard all of them because I haven't been here on several occasions — they are very specific. They are about a specific development or a specific area, and that legitimately should be an issue that comes to the Planning Department for adjudication for a specific project, not for a General Plan. That said, I understand that there is a lot of frustration because the earlier plan was not ... from certain perspectives, was not ... it did not reflect the community desires, and it sometimes doesn't because it is at the 25,000 or 50,000 -foot level because you want to be able to see the entire thing. It's almost like affordable housing. People want affordable housing, but they don't want new developments. And at the same time, if you have affordable housing, how do you make sure that it stays affordable because there is no realtor, there's no homeowner who's willing to 25 sell to the lowest bidder. It's always going to go to the highest bidder, and as long as we keep Kauai attractive, which is what we want to do, then it will be attractive, not just to people who live here, but other people. So the demand will always outstrip supply, and consequently when you look at affordable housing, you have to look at alternative ways besides just building things and how to keep it affordable for the kids and for the grandkids, and it's not an easy thing of whether we have another development or whether we don't have another development or whether we change the zoning on one place or another; it's a complete thing. I think the Planning Department has done an exceptional job trying to put all of this stuff together, and Marie, your team, I see all of you here. It's great, but the problem with it is that what we all have to deal with is what level are you looking at, at what level are you looking at this plan. And I think it might be easier for people to understand the General Plan in that it's for 20 years; it's not just for this year or next year. It's the problem that we have this year, but it's not a small segment of the problem, it's the entire island. And it's not on the basis of...the systems map that has been presented is one way of looking at it, but there are other ways, other alternatives; it's just not as simple. I think I'm stating the obvious. I think everybody knows that it's not simple, but the way that we're looking at it and the kinds of concerns that we're getting here, which are very good -don't get me wrong, I really appreciate hearing it but they're probably at the 100 - foot level as opposed to the 25,000 -foot level that we need to look at. But thank you for listening. Mr. Lord: To your point, Commissioner, I hear a lot about, oh, we want affordable housing, we want this strata of housing, and there's a little bit of a misnomer or perception that somehow that's the only good housing. And really, if you looked at it in a broader view so we're talking about broad views - virtually all residential housing is good housing if you think about it because if someone were to ... let's say they were in a workforce home and they've saved and they've worked hard and they've done well and they move up into the next strata of housing, that frees up that house that they moved out of for the next resident to come in and buy it, so you have this constant shift of housing available for residents. So looking at it in sort of this little defined strata is really not taking into account the total inventory that could be available for people. When I look at housing, I see ... you know, if we have this giant deficit and we need to address it and we create it with a variety of residential home types, that helps everybody. Mr. Dahilig: I do want to mention one thing, too, with concern to why the process, in some respects, does stoke this 100 -foot or very low altitude types of comments with specificity. Because of the way that the State law is structured, we have to provide regulatory policy recommendations as well as spatial policy, and it's a very unusual situation where the spatial policy has to be specific because we're drawing maps, whereas we have a lot of latitude, from a regulatory policy standpoint, to point things in directions and draw up laws, etc. To change our zoning maps at the County level, we have to have the spatial policy be consistent. So that's why when you hear some of the comments today concerning Hokua Place as well as Princeville, these items are raised because we have to, in effect, also define the spatial policy which can only be done through a map. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the reaction comes across as being reflective of, potentially, a myopic perspective and that's where the balancing has to come in with the maps. We tend to get a majority of the comments - and Marie can attest to this concerning just mapping; that's where the majority of our comments come in. We don't like this here, we don't like this here, we like this here, we want this here, and that is a function of, inherently, the way 26 that the State Zoning Authorization Act requires us to provide that policy. So even more so it becomes that how do you, again, not lose the trees from the forest or the forest from the trees kind of situation where what are you really looking at here and whether it be fortunate or unfortunate, we have to prescribe, on the map, the spatial policy which tends to draw us into these real specific conversations. Ms. Nogami Streufert: And I don't disagree with that. I just don't know that the General Plan should have very specific companies or titles in there because it could change. And if you're looking at maps, I totally understand that. If you're looking at regulations, I understand that, too. But those are guidelines for making decisions in the future and not specifically only for a particular project, and that's ... when it gets down to the particular projects and you get the emotionality because people are involved in it, and that becomes much more difficult. Mr. Dahilig: I agree and that's where the struggle comes with ... let's take, for example, what has been raised across the island that we've tested as part of our community process is this perspective of use it or lose it. I don't know if you've maybe ... you may have picked up on that, but that is an entitlement policy that seems to have resonated with a lot of our community members that if in the planning horizon of 20 years you're wanting the landowner to move forward with actually implementing that element of the plan, it's incumbent on that landowner to be responsible to come in and actually take advantage of it. So if you look at some of the testimony that has come in, you have areas, like Princeville for example, which have entitlements that ... which have this designation from a spatial policy standpoint going back to the early 80's, and you also have a situation where that particular development has come in for a set of entitlements that are contrary to actually what the spatial policy is. So where we align that high-level discussion with the low-level discussion is (inaudible). Regardless of who the landowner is, if you are going to come in, the public wants you to act on it or you lose it. So it's not consistent with the policy and so time is, in as much, a consideration because of the planning horizon than just coloring things on the map. It's just illustrative of that situation you're prescribing where you have ... and you want to, regardless of who the landowner is, provide those layers of community sentiment to how the spatial policy is implemented. In these types of cases, what we've done from an island -wide standpoint is say okay, any of these newer entitlements, the public wants you to act or shut up, essentially, you know, use it or lose it, and that seemed to have resounded very well in our community testing process. So that's an example of how we're trying to integrate those desires. Chair Keawe: Any other comments? So, Mike. Mr. Dahilig: I think, Mr. Chair, we're still getting more information in and I think—we do have that additional meeting scheduled on Thursday. I think the reaction from the Department, as we've been evaluating the testimony that has come in, is that there are many items that I think our department has carried the ball as far as it can and that decisions, at the end of the day, have to be made on some of these tension points. So the testimony we're generally getting now are things that are lining up ... I mean, I don't want to give the impression that it's like World War I trench warfare, but it's ... you know, there are very two (2) clear points of view, there are two (2) very clear paths to go, and I think it's now at a point where we've given our recommendations, Mr. Chair, and where we think would be the appropriate balance if there is any to move forward 27 with that. I don't take your responsibility or the Commission's responsibility lightly. I think it is a collective decision of consequence and I think if there is an inclination to want to move forward with the plan, I think it's probably best the Commission maybe take one last chance to sleep on it and hear what has gone on here today and if there's anything in the next two (2) days or so that gives rise to us on adding anything else that the Commissioners would like us to take a look at, we're happy to work on those items leading into Thursday. Again, we don't want to give the impression to the Commission that we expect action, but I think, at least from a departmental work standpoint, we are starting to see comments already becoming circular. We are starting to see, again, these two (2) very clear paths and I thirilc we've given our recommendations, but if there is anything in the interim given the testimony today that you'd like for us to revisit one more time or revisit in terms of how it should be explained or should we add or change anything, we want to give the Commissioners that opportunity to sleep on it because I think after ... this is the ... I believe, the sixth meeting the Commission has had on this item and it'll be the seventh meeting coming up on Thursday, so it's ... again, I don't want to give the impression we're trying to push the Commission, but I think I can say with a degree of confidence that this is about as far as the Department can take the ball when it comes to trying to integrate and evaluate the public testimonies. Chair Keawe: Okay. So I guess ... at this point, I guess I'd like to hear from all the Commissioners individually. We have the opportunity to defer this measure 'til ... what was it? Thursday? Mr. Dahilig: Thursday. Chair Keawe: (The) 27th, take one last look at it. I know from my own perspective, you know, trying to read through all that stuff in a limited period of time is, I mean, really like drinking through a fire hose. It is very difficult to do that. And then try to consciously remember all of the points. I echo your sentiments, Commissioner Streufert. The Planning Department has gone out of their way to make sure that there was a public process in this. And, you know, I think realizing that those were comments that came from the last plan that was done, oh, we didn't have a chance to talk more about this, and I think in this case, they just went out of their way and I commend them for doing that. It's not an easy process to plan for this, to do it, and to be able to make substantive changes. It doesn't mean that everybody's comments are going to get changed and put into the plan. I think that's ... you know, you can't expect that every single comment from every person is going to get put into the plan. So I think they've done a great job, and like Mike said, you know, finding that balance. And I agree with you, you know, it's the 25,000 -foot view, but all the comments come in at 100 feet, you know, and everybody's jumping up and down at 100 feet; I want this, I want that, I want a policy, I want to make sure that we get all this kind of stuff. So again, finding that balance is very difficult. So, I'll throw it open. Commissioner Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney: I think there has been intelligent testimony from the concerned community, and the Planning Department, the planners... it's been a give-and-take with the almost insurmountable job or task in front of me, and I think the Department has done well and the public has done well, and now we're going to have to synthesize what we've listened to -- the concerns - and the process that's been put before us, and make a decision. As the Chair said, it's 28 impossible to please everyone, but I think everyone that's on this Commission and everyone in this room and the public at large is a concerned citizen. So like I said earlier, we're going to have to synthesize the best parts and come to a decision. Will everybody be smiling every day? No. But I think as time goes on, this is about ... it's the General Plan. And as time goes on and as things change and as your life changes, your opinions might also come into agreement with some parts you don't like or maybe they won't, but that's just what this is. I appreciate all the testimony and the Department's terrific effort that they put in, and Marie leading this, especially. I think we should probably defer it to the next meeting and take a deep breath, review what we've got to review, and then vote on it. Chair Keawe: Okay. Commissioner Lord. Mr. Lord: Being a new commissioner, I very much understand your sentiments about trying to drink through a fire hose. So I've been really working hard to try to get up to speed on the General Plan. I've spent a great deal of time talking to people and reading testimony and watching testimony, and it's wonderful that the public is this engaged in something that's this important. I'm very much in awe of the commitment by the public to want to help guide the County. When I heard that the Planning Department has been at this now and prior Commissions — for 5 years, I think it is time to sleep on it. I promised a couple of people I would read their testimony that was given to me today, but I think that we're at that point where we need to make our decision. So I would agree with Commissioner Mahoney that a deferral for one (1) more meeting would be appropriate. Chair Keawe: Okay. Commissioner Apisa. Ms. Apisa: Yeah, I'm certainly not ready to make any decision today and so I think it will be interesting to see what comes up Thursday at the Special Meeting, just to hear further input and we will go from there. Chair Keawe: Okay. Commissioner Streufert. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I think that there are many decisions that are going to have to be made and I don't think, based upon what I have read so far, that I have synthesized everything from Supplement No. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 to the main thing yet. I'm looking forward to having more information from the public, as well as from the other commissioners, because I haven't necessarily heard what other commissioners think about this either. So, I'm for deferring it because I think that the public deserves our ... not just our commitment, but our reading through everything and really trying to synthesize everything that you've been saying. But know that we've got some experts in the Planning Department that we will also take into account and hopefully we will come up with balanced decisions. You may like some, you may not like others, but it's not just one decision of yay versus nay. So, I appreciate your having listened to my soapbox for a little bit and thank you for the opportunity. Chair Keawe: Thank you. I'll entertain a motion. 29 Mr. Mahoney: Chair, move to defer Zoning Amendment ZA-2017-3 relating to the General Plan for the County of Kauai to our next meeting, Thursday - Chair Keawe: Thursday, the 27`h Mr. Mahoney: The 27th Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second. Chair Keawe: Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on this motion? All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carried 5:0. COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have one (1) last item of business and that's Item K, which is the Subdivision Committee Report. Those are the circulated for the Commissioners and I believe there was one (1) item at this Sub Committee meeting. Mr. Mahoney: Subdivision Report for this morning. Final subdivision map approval; No. S- 2015-11; Alan and Sandra Matsumoto; TMK: 2-4-014:027; two (2) commissioners present, Sean Mahoney and Donna Apisa; the vote"recommendation was for approval, 2:0. And that was all the business that took place this morning. Chair Keawe: Okay. I'll entertain a motion on the Subdivision Report. Ms. Apisa: Move that we approve the Subdivision Report. Ms. Nogami Streufert: Second. Chair Keawe: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor signify - (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion carried 5:0. Thank you. ANNOUNCEMENTS Topics for Future Meetings The following regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A-213, 4444 Rice Street, Uhu`e, Kauai, Hawaii 96766 on Tuesday, May 9, 2017. Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have circulated to the Commission the batting order sheets for the upcoming meetings. You will note that the next regularly scheduled meeting is O Tuesday, May 9`h, 2017. I do want to give the Commission a bit of a heads up on that particular meeting. It's the return date for the eighteen (18) contested case hearing motions on the Hearings Officer recusal, so there will be two (2) separate agendas that will be circulated; one is a contested case hearing agenda, the other one is a regular agenda for regular permit processing. So, just a look ahead at that, but again, beyond the Special Meeting on the General Plan that's been called on Thursday, that May 91h meeting will have two (2) agendas and we'll proceed as such. Other than that, Mr. Chair, that's all we have from the Department. Chair Keawe: Okay. I'd like to thank all the members of the public that have come to testify. We appreciate your commitment in wanting to make Kauai better and we appreciate the process of having the opportunity to work with you and all the comments, so thank you very much. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keawe: I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Ms. Nogami Streufert: I move to adjourn. Chair Keawe: Second? Ms. Apisa: Second. Chair Keawe: All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carried 5:0. Meeting adjourned. Chair Keawe adjourned the meeting at 11:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted by: 4a�� LDfrcie Agaran, Commission Support Clerk ( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval) ( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting. 31